Ikigai LawIkigai LawIkigai LawIkigai Law
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Communications
    • Data Governance
    • Digital Economy
    • Digital Gaming
    • Fintech
    • Health-tech
    • Mobility
    • Online Content
    • Other Areas
    • Startups
    • Unmanned Aviation
    • Vlog
  • News & Events
    • Ikigai Law in the news
    • Ikigai Law at events
    • Ikigailaw on the social media
  • Careers

Visual-Guide to Existing Safe Harbour Provisions

    Home Digital Economy Visual-Guide to Existing Safe Harbour Provisions
    NextPrevious

    Visual-Guide to Existing Safe Harbour Provisions

    By Ikigai Law | Digital Economy | 0 comment | 12 November, 2019 | 2

    This article outlines the current statutory framework for availing Safe Harbour protection under the IT Act and the areas of challenge in the existing law.

    It is a selected excerpt from our series tracking the Evolution of Safe Harbour provisions in India, available here.

    A further excerpt summarising our observations on the impact proposed amendments to intermediary guidelines are likely to have is available here.

    In the on-line world, Safe Harbour provisions protect the people and enterprises who provide the underlying infrastructure, also known as intermediaries, from liability for the acts of third parties who use this infrastructure for their own purposes. For e.g. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable if their subscribers use the internet for unlawful acts, Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) are not liable because people store illegal data on their server, e-commerce platforms are not liable if people sell spurious goods and social media platforms are not liable if people post defamatory content.

    Safe Harbour provisions are found under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”)[1]. Section 79 (2) lists out the requirements to avail safe-harbour protection. One of these requirements is the observance of guidelines prescribed by the central government from time to time. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (“Intermediary Guidelines”)[2] are the primary guidelines which intermediaries need to observe to avail safe-harbour protection. These guidelines list out the due diligence requirements that must be observed by intermediaries to avail the safe-harbour protection.

    The current framework for safe-harbour protection in India is illustrated in the flow-chart below.

    Areas of Concerns

    • The conditions for seeking Safe Harbour protections are too stringent and have lost sight of ground realities. Particularly, the stipulation that that intermediaries should not “initiate, select the receiver of the transmission and select or modify the transmission”, is unduly harsh. The purpose and function of an intermediary is to facilitate transaction and/or transmission of data initiated by their users. This would in many instances, necessarily involve structuring the environment in which such transactions and/or transmissions take place. This is especially crucial for e-commerce intermediaries operating in new markets wherein the sellers may lack the technical skills/knowledge to optimise the display of the information relating to their products. Even in developed markets certain activities undertaken by intermediaries such as indexing of content, targeted advertising based on user preferences etc., enrich user experience and are considered indispensable.

    For more on this please refer to our discussion around passivity and the observations made by Delhi High Court’s in Christian Louboutin SAS vs Nakul Bajaj and Ors. (2014 SCC OnLine Del 4932) in Part II of this Series.

    • It is unclear when an intermediary can be deemed to have “actual knowledge” of an unlawful act on their platform. For a while it seemed that the standard for actual knowledge had been set by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v Union of India[3] case which broadly held that ‘actual knowledge’ would only be through a court order. However, in the matter of Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd[4], the Delhi High Court held that the Shreya Singhal standard was only applicable to social media intermediaries. Consequently, the ambiguity on when an intermediary can be deemed to have actual knowledge remains.

    For more on this please refer to our discussion around the interpretation of the terms “actual knowledge” in Part II of this Series.

    • Recently in the matter of Swami Ramdev and Anr. vs. Facebook Inc. & Ors[5], the Delhi High Court has opined that take-down requirement imposed on intermediaries mandate a global take down of any unlawful content uploaded from India. It is pertinent to note here, that most intermediaries operate on a global scale and what may be deemed to be unlawful in one jurisdiction may not necessarily be deemed to unlawful in another. Thus, intermediaries will be being forced to take down content which is deemed to be unlawful in India across the globe. This may make them liable for action in some other jurisdiction where such content is legal for an unlawful takedown.

    For more on this please refer to our discussion around Global Takedowns in Part II of this Series.

    Authored by Tanya Sadana, Senior Associate Ikigai Law with inputs from Anirudh Rastogi and Aman Taneja

     

    References –

    [1] The Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted by the then Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs vide Extraordinary Gazette publication dated 9 June 2019. The IT Act is available at https://indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999?view_type=browse&sam_handle=123456789/1362 (Last accessed on 2 April 2019).

    [2] The Intermediary Guidelines were released by the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication Technology vide G.S.R. 314(E) dated 11 April 2011, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (zg) of sub-section (2) of Section 87 read with sub-section (2) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Intermediary Guidelines are available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in099en.pdf (Last accessed on 02 April 2019).

    [3] Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

    [4] Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd, (2017) 236 DLT 478 (DB)

    [5] Swami Ramdev and Anr. vs. Facebook Inc. & Ors, CS (OS) 27 of 2019, available at http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PMS/judgement/23-10-2019/PMS23102019S272019.pdf

    amendments, Intermediary Guidelines, intermediary liability, itact, safe harbour, sec 79

    Ikigai Law

    More posts by Ikigai Law

    Related Post

    • Impact of Proposed Amendments to Intermediary Guidelines

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This article summarises our observations on the impact the proposed amendments to intermediary guidelines are likely to have. It is a selected excerpt from our series tracking the Evolution of Safe Harbour provisions in India,Read more

    • Intermediary Liability: Evolution of Safe-Harbour Law in India (Part I)

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This is a quick guide to the evolution of safe harbour provisions under Indian Law and how proposed amendments are likely to impact them. If you wish to skip the history of safe harbour provisionsRead more

    • Intermediary liability: judicial interpretations of current safe harbour provisions

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This article traces how courts across India have interpreted some crucial concepts pertaining to Safe Harbour law in India. It is Part II in our series of articles which trace the evolution of Safe HarbourRead more

    • Has the Delhi High Court effectively asked intermediaries to track user location data?

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Has the Delhi High Court effectively asked intermediaries to track user location data? On 23rd October, 2019 the Delhi High Court passed a judgement on whether content take-down and blocking orders passed by it wouldRead more

    • Our notes from the Medianama roundtable on online content regulation

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Preliminary On 26 September 2019, Medianama organised a roundtable discussion on online content regulation at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi. It was well attended with over a hundred people in attendance representing stakeholdersRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    Tags

    Blockchain Budget Consent Consultation Consultation Paper cryptocurrency data Data Controllers Data Protection Data Subjects Digital India Facebook finance Fintech Government Government of India IAMAI Ikigai Law India Indian government Innovation intermediary liability Internet MeITY Notice Online Content online gaming Personal Data policy Privacy RBI Recommendation Regulation Responsibilities of Data Controllers safe harbour Social media Srikrishna Committee Stakeholders Startups Technology Tech Policy Telecommunications TRAI Union User Empowerment

    Connect with Ikigai Law

    Copyright 2018 Ikigai Law | All Rights Reserved             

    Information

    • About Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy

    Contact us

    Office
    B-99, Ground Floor, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi

    Phone Number
    +91-11-41604733
    +91-11-42831840

    Email Address
    contact@ikigailaw.com

    Designed & Developed by Kalakaari
    • About Us
      • About Us
      • Our Team
    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Communications
      • Data Governance
      • Digital Economy
      • Digital Gaming
      • Fintech
      • Health-tech
      • Mobility
      • Online Content
      • Other Areas
      • Startups
      • Unmanned Aviation
      • Vlog
    • News & Events
      • Ikigai Law in the news
      • Ikigai Law at events
      • Ikigailaw on the social media
    • Careers
    Ikigai Law